Skip to main content
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Meng Wanzhou, Chief Financial Officer of Huawei, leaves her home in Vancouver on March 25, to go to B.C. Supreme Court.

JONATHAN HAYWARD/The Canadian Press

A lawyer for Canada’s attorney general says there’s no evidence that the RCMP shared the serial numbers with U.S. investigators of the devices of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou.

John Gibb-Carsley told the B.C. Supreme Court that the burden of proof is on Meng’s legal team to show the numbers were shared, but they can’t do it.

“We say there’s no evidence of that,” he said Thursday.

Story continues below advertisement

Meng’s legal team is arguing that proceedings in her extradition case should be stayed because of misconduct by RCMP and border officers involved in her arrest.

Her lawyers say a senior RCMP officer improperly shared the serial numbers, which they describe as a “gateway” to more personal information such as photos and contacts.

Meng was arrested at Vancouver’s airport in December 2018 at the request of U.S. officials to face fraud charges that both she and Huawei deny.

Her arrest fractured Canada’s relations with China and the subsequent detention in China of Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig has widely been seen as retaliation.

The court has seen e-mail evidence that the Federal Bureau of Investigation asked for the serial numbers of the devices and RCMP collected them, but the email chain goes cold before confirming if they were sent or not.

The senior officer at the centre of the email chain, Staff Sgt. Ben Chang, has since retired. In written testimony, he says he didn’t share the numbers, but he has refused to appear in court for cross-examination.

Gibb-Carsley told the judge that the fact-finding inquiry about number sharing has broader implications about Meng’s claims of what happened.

Story continues below advertisement

“It is symptomatic of how (Meng’s lawyers) have created their narrative, that what’s driving the actions of the RCMP and CBSA was a covert criminal investigation to assist the FBI,” he says.

A factual determination that the numbers weren’t shared is important for refuting the overarching allegations of abuse, misconduct and prejudice of the legal process, Gibb-Carsley says.

There’s nothing “magical” about electronic serial numbers, which are physical markings on devices that are important for continuity of evidence, he said.

“In this file, (electronic serial number) has taken on an exotic persona, more than I say it deserves,” he says.

He challenged an assertion from Meng’s team that Chang may have shared the numbers via phone, text or from a personal e-mail account.

The alphanumeric numbers are so long that delivering them by phone or text would be unlikely, Gibb-Carsley responded. And given that the request was received via Chang’s RCMP e-mail account, he said it also doesn’t make sense that he would then transmit them from a personal account.

Story continues below advertisement

The court heard that Chang’s RCMP emails and text messages were wiped when he retired in June 2019, six months after Meng’s arrest.

Gibb-Carsley said there’s “simply no merit” to claims from Meng’s team that it involved the destruction of evidence or that it “prejudiced” Meng’s extradition case in any way.

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies